Did Pelosi Give Syria Message from Israel?
Nancy Pelosi recently said that she “had relayed a message from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to the effect that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.” Syria responded that it’s ready for talks . There is but one little problem: Israel denies “that [it] relayed a message to Syria” .
In fact, Olmert’s office said that: “what was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change in Israel’s policy, as it has been presented to international parties involved in the matter.”
And, according to the prime minister’s office, Olmert told Pelosi that “Israel continued to regard Syria as ‘part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East’.”
I wonder, like Hot Air’s A.P. , whether “she bungled the offer unintentionally, out of sheer, royal stupidity, or she didn’t bungle it at all and there’s simply been a miscommunication somewhere.”
This is quite unbelievable. I am not sure what to think of it. Miscommunication, stupidity… intentional?
Ed Morrissey comments: and this is exactly why foreign policy belongs in the executive branch .
I believe that Pelosi should never have traveled to the Mideast, and especially not if she wants to do more than just chitchat. This is none of her business. If Israel wants to give a message to Syria, it would do so through the President of the U.S. or, more likely, its secretary of state.
This is truly a sign of major incompetence.
I read before Pelosi’s trip (I wish I could remember where) that Olmert had made a statement re a willingness to negotiate with Syria. So, I reacted to Pelosi’s statement as simply saying to Syria directly what had already been said indirectly.
Maybe Pelosi hyped it too much.
Maybe Olmert got backlash at home. Maybe Olmert got an earful from Bush. Bush undercuts Rice repeatedly, according to reports, so i wouldn’t be surprised.
Too many maybes at this point to rush to judgment.
“Rush to judgement”? If Olmert says that this is not what he told Pelosi, than Pelosi screwed up, no matter what happened. She should have stayed in America. This is not her responsibility. The result: chaos. Whether she is to blame completely or not, is irrelevatn since the initial blame lies with her: she should not intervened.
MVDG-
A Lancaster County (PA)newspaper reports that their congressman, a Republican named Pitts, was assisted by the WH in arranging for his trip to Syria.
Another Republican, on return from Syria said that he doesn;t care what the WH thinks about his trip.
This is another case, where party affiliation should not determine evaluations but are doing exactly that, apparently.
With that background, and the fact that no one knows the full story, I think your lashing out at Pelosi is unwarranted.
We’ll just have to leave at that.
full disagreement. Other delegations going to Syria or anywhere in the region on fact finding or attempts to show interest is one thing.
To act like the Secretary of State is another - and totally within the act for Political gain for the Democrats here at home.
Here is the legal aspect of their respective roles.
Her and her actions do not belong there for political posturing and gain.
And that is as they say - the end of the story.
Doma: but I consider it to be not done in both cases. I lash out to Pelosi, because she creates utter chaos and confusion. She is also the leader of the Democratic party in the House and, as such, somewhat more important than your rank and file representative.
Anyway, in both cases it should not be done, but in Pelosi’s case I consider it to be more significant.
And the “but they do it to”-argument doesn’t jive well with me.
MVDG - “And the “but they do it to”-argument doesn’t jive well with me.”
—————
Nor me.
I was addressing the reaction to, not actions by, members of different parties.
I’m also confused by the role of the WH in the case of Pitts.
I give no blanket excuses, nor blanket blame.
I’m just pointing out how confusing the events are and how contradictory the statements surrounding them.
On Pelosi’s right to travel, we’ll just have to remain in disagreement.
——————
Interested-
Traveling and meeting people is not the same as conducting foreign policy. The distinction might be blurry, but it’s there.
At any rate, if you suggest banning Pelosi from travel, then all members of Congress should be banned. And what about members of the administration not directly involved in foreign policy? You can’t discriminate, IMO.
Dom,
Relaying messages - whether actual or not - is not the purvue of any Congressional member unless they are asked to by the Executive branch. Read the summary of their respective roles.
And what I exactly said was
She had no business doing that. Like I said - to fact find is one thing. To act as Secretary of State is nothing more than playing the little politican away from home.
If you disagree, read up on the consitutional roles for foreign policy (the summary was above). They overlap, but best way to describe Congress’s role is oversight and approval.
Interested -
I’m glad for you that it’s all so clear to you.
To me it isn’t. So, I suspend my judgment.
Why was there no outrage, I wonder, when Pelosi made a speech in Lebanon and visited Israel?
I just read that China is very interested. A lot of fall out, now.
I need time to see what else happens and to reflect.
At any rate, it’s Pelos’s risk. If this bears bad fruit, she’ll pay for it, giving the outraged crowd satisfaction.
It is clear and cut and dry. Have you read up on the Constitution regarding it? You cannot selectively give Constitutional roles to the Legislative branch when it’s convenient. You may recall all of the arguments on the Executive branch selectively applying the Constitution. To now say it does not also apply to the Legislative branch (who is making motions to reign in the Executive branch of these actions) is hypocritical at best.
Here is a good link for info.
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm
Fact finding and a show of support if you will - is within the powers of Congressional Oversight. Sending messages on behalf of a government is within the powers of Executive branch typically via Secretary of State.
IMO - her being there, or any delegation that does not show a single unified voice of the United States is stupidity at it’s best. But if she limited it to fact finding, than so be it. However, she didn’t.